9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[PhysicsExist]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

We need to write down 100000000000 times that THE STEEL DID NOT MELT and he still won't get it.

Maybe other metals there might have melted, but the steel failed, it did not melt.

those who know other languages might try typing it out in Hebrew, Russian, german , French, Korean, Farsi, Japanese, Armenian, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, Italian, Serbo Croatian, Xhosa, Mandarin, Portuguese.... just in case he doesn't understand english. The Steel did not melt.

Yeesh.

It didnt?

This is NOT aluminum.

It didn't?

It didn't?

QUOTE OF FEMA:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

It didn't?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

What else can I do but show you the facts over and over until what? Address these points, or do not post a response. It's embarrassing.

If you want to apologize I will gladly accept your apology. This is not a joke, I take this 9/11 fraud seriously. We have soldiers over seas, I have friends overseas, we have spent trillions over there, we have effected millions, we have enabled TSA, DHS, the Patriot Act....We have be duped, and you are only holding the truth back by stating fallacies. Respond to the facts, stop playing these games...ACKNOWLEDGE steel that melt from FIRES that CANNOT melt it. ACKNOWLEDGE FREEFALL acceleration during wtc7 collapse, ACKNOWLEDGE the videos and architects and physics. Take off the blinders.

Happy New Year. 2011 is ours.

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

 

[PhysicsExist]

You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

When two objects are falling, and one object PASSES the other, the one doing the passing cannot (by the laws of physics) be going FASTER than the slower object if the slower object has achieved free fall speeds.

Ho hum.

And in case any of you dopey dishonest Troofers think that WTC TOWER alleged (but false) "free fall" is substantively different than the falsely claimed free fall of the WTC7, you need to do some more research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=player_embedded

How embarrassing can it get? You post videos that are HATED on youtube, 978 Likes 1108 Dislike and that are outdated from 2007. Cmon man, you're not even trying, this is disgusting. That video is a joke, shows nothing to disprove the truth.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc[/ame]

Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible in WTC7 unless explosives were used.
The demolition of the Twin Towers was done with Nanothermite.

 

[DiveCon]

You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.



When two objects are falling, and one object PASSES the other, the one doing the passing cannot (by the laws of physics) be going FASTER than the slower object if the slower object has achieved free fall speeds.

Ho hum.

And in case any of you dopey dishonest Troofers think that WTC TOWER alleged (but false) "free fall" is substantively different than the falsely claimed free fall of the WTC7, you need to do some more research.

How embarrassing can it get? You post videos that are HATED on youtube, 978 Likes 1108 Dislike and that are outdated from 2007. Cmon man, you're not even trying, this is disgusting. That video is a joke, shows nothing to disprove the truth.



Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible in WTC7 unless explosives were used.
The demolition of the Twin Towers was done with Nanothermite.

dipshit, you must be totally wrong
look at all those red pips you got for rep

 

[westwall]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

It didnt?

This is NOT aluminum.

It didn't?

It didn't?

QUOTE OF FEMA:

It didn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

What else can I do but show you the facts over and over until what? Address these points, or do not post a response. It's embarrassing.

If you want to apologize I will gladly accept your apology. This is not a joke, I take this 9/11 fraud seriously. We have soldiers over seas, I have friends overseas, we have spent trillions over there, we have effected millions, we have enabled TSA, DHS, the Patriot Act....We have be duped, and you are only holding the truth back by stating fallacies. Respond to the facts, stop playing these games...ACKNOWLEDGE steel that melt from FIRES that CANNOT melt it. ACKNOWLEDGE FREEFALL acceleration during wtc7 collapse, ACKNOWLEDGE the videos and architects and physics. Take off the blinders.

Happy New Year. 2011 is ours.

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

No, I was not enlightened. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that high pressure combined with some heat will also weld things together. As would happen with several hundred tons falling from a great height. Or did you know that extreme cold will weld things together as well? Or how about the fact that the vacuum of space will also weld things together? Your ignorance is amazing. How do you maintain it?

 

[PhysicsExist]

LOL holy shit
since when is 21% even close to a third?

and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"

You cannot get 2,800oF* Degrees with any Hydrocarbon Fire

Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.

The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then? Please address your slander.

Use your eyes man.

 

[westwall]

You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

When two objects are falling, and one object PASSES the other, the one doing the passing cannot (by the laws of physics) be going FASTER than the slower object if the slower object has achieved free fall speeds.

Ho hum.

And in case any of you dopey dishonest Troofers think that WTC TOWER alleged (but false) "free fall" is substantively different than the falsely claimed free fall of the WTC7, you need to do some more research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=player_embedded

How embarrassing can it get? You post videos that are HATED on youtube, 978 Likes 1108 Dislike and that are outdated from 2007. Cmon man, you're not even trying, this is disgusting. That video is a joke, shows nothing to disprove the truth.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc[/ame]

Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible in WTC7 unless explosives were used.
The demolition of the Twin Towers was done with Nanothermite.

well there have to be what? a couple thousand of you? All of you saying you hate it and voila! You by your ownselves can make that a hated video! In other words big deal! If it is factually correct I could care less if Moses didn't like it. It's still correct and conforms the physical laws of the universe we currently live in.

 

[Liability]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

It didnt?

This is NOT aluminum.

It didn't?

It didn't?

QUOTE OF FEMA:

It didn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

What else can I do but show you the facts over and over until what? Address these points, or do not post a response. It's embarrassing.

If you want to apologize I will gladly accept your apology. This is not a joke, I take this 9/11 fraud seriously. We have soldiers over seas, I have friends overseas, we have spent trillions over there, we have effected millions, we have enabled TSA, DHS, the Patriot Act....We have be duped, and you are only holding the truth back by stating fallacies. Respond to the facts, stop playing these games...ACKNOWLEDGE steel that melt from FIRES that CANNOT melt it. ACKNOWLEDGE FREEFALL acceleration during wtc7 collapse, ACKNOWLEDGE the videos and architects and physics. Take off the blinders.

Happy New Year. 2011 is ours.

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenhight 451.

 

[Liability]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

It didnt?

This is NOT aluminum.

It didn't?

It didn't?

QUOTE OF FEMA:

It didn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

What else can I do but show you the facts over and over until what? Address these points, or do not post a response. It's embarrassing.

If you want to apologize I will gladly accept your apology. This is not a joke, I take this 9/11 fraud seriously. We have soldiers over seas, I have friends overseas, we have spent trillions over there, we have effected millions, we have enabled TSA, DHS, the Patriot Act....We have be duped, and you are only holding the truth back by stating fallacies. Respond to the facts, stop playing these games...ACKNOWLEDGE steel that melt from FIRES that CANNOT melt it. ACKNOWLEDGE FREEFALL acceleration during wtc7 collapse, ACKNOWLEDGE the videos and architects and physics. Take off the blinders.

Happy New Year. 2011 is ours.

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

 

[PhysicsExist]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

 

[DiveCon]

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)

You've seemed to miss this.

You are now enlightened westwall.

No, I was not enlightened. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that high pressure combined with some heat will also weld things together. As would happen with several hundred tons falling from a great height. Or did you know that extreme cold will weld things together as well? Or how about the fact that the vacuum of space will also weld things together? Your ignorance is amazing. How do you maintain it?

which more explains how PAPER was part of that blob of material
had it been "molten steel" the paper would have burned away

 

[DiveCon]

You are now enlightened westwall.

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

 

[Liability]

You are now enlightened westwall.

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

What appeared to be "flowing" molten metal may or may not have been flowing molten metal. A firefighter could be mistaken without lying. And even if it were flowing molten metal, it need not have been molten iron.

But your idiot reply deliberately evades the debunking of your "meteorite" nonsense, of course.

Why would paper that burns at 451 degrees Farenhight be embedded, and still legible, therefore unburnt, if the metal within the meteorite had been so hot that it melted?

Either that metal never got that hot or we have magic paper that doesn't burn up to ashes at the temperature at which iron "melts."

Which is it, genius?

 

[westwall]

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

Or molten aluminum.

 

[PhysicsExist]

No. It didn't. None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail. A lower temperature is required to make it fail.

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.

A close up view of the "meteorite" shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:

Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm. Famous novel should serve as a clue. Farenheit 451.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/ame]

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?

 

[DiveCon]

The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then? Please address your slander.

Use your eyes man.

and they werent talking about what you have a photo of either
but you arent honest enough to admit that

 

[Liability]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/ame]

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?

LOL!

A demand to answer crap that you think we are avoiding while, at the same time, YOU are avoiding the incontrovertible fact that your citation to that magic meteorite is hogwash.

We have proof of the most complex conspiracy in the history of complex conspiracies. The conspirators conspired to make unburnable paper!

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/ame]

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?

i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact

 

[DiveCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

Or molten aluminum.

i know, but i used lead as having the lower melting point

 

[westwall]

The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then? Please address your slander.

Use your eyes man.

No but they don't know the difference between molten steel or molten aluminium. There were tons of aluminium in that building and it melts at a very low 1220 degrees. You may go away now.

 

[PhysicsExist]

no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/ame]

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?

LOL!

A demand to answer crap that you think we are avoiding while, at the same time, YOU are avoiding the incontrovertible fact that your citation to that magic meteorite is hogwash.

We have proof of the most complex conspiracy in the history of complex conspiracies. The conspirators conspired to make unburnable paper!

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.